Executing homosexuals

[Arthur Brain]

Prepare a Lake of Fire and throw them in.

Are you going to test it out first?

lain:

 

[Lighthouse]

When religion is used for the justification of executing homosexuals, then it is about freedom of/from religion.

And who is using religion as justification?

BTW, one needs to actually commit a DP offense in order to be executed. We all know that will never happen.

I'm pretty sure the entire point of this thread was zoo asking for people to explain how it would be brought about to happen that homosexuality became a DP offense.

How about those that got married solely for the financial or tax benefits, but were just in a platonic friendship?

:doh:

If homosexuality were illegal then so would same gender marriage, regardless of the sexuality of the people involved.

For someone who boasts about his own intelligence so much you sure do have a bizarre habit of misreading or missing the actual point. What I was addressing had nothing whatsoever to do with whether other objections to homosexuality can be made besides biblical or religious ones. Nothing at all. My actual point was as stated. In the sense of being free from certain people's particular brands of zealous extremism - like yours for example - then we are indeed free of it as there's no chance of it coming about.

I have no zealous extremism. I wouldn't advocate for this if I simply believed the Bible said so without understanding why.

 

[gcthomas]

If homosexuality were illegal then so would same gender marriage, regardless of the sexuality of the people involved.

Do try to keep up, LH. I was asking how you'd identify homosexuals to summarily execute try in court, and you might think that the recort of a gay marriage certificate would be useful evidence. But, no.

And you still haven't answered how you'd gain a conviction on the charge for gay couples.

 

[Lighthouse]

Do try to keep up, LH. I was asking how you'd identify homosexuals to execute try in court, and you might think that the recort of a gay marriage certificate would be useful evidence. But, no.

No. Because to punish someone for doing something when it was not illegal is unjust. You have to wait for them to commit the act while it is a crime.

And you still haven't answered how you'd gain a conviction on the charge for gay couples.

They'd have to be caught in the act somehow with enough evidence to constitute the weight of two or three reliable witnesses. Exactly how I feel any criminal should be convicted. If such cannot be provided then they shouldn't even be arrested.

 

[Christian Liberty]

@Lighthouse- OT law has a death penalty for idolatry to.

So, if you believe in imposing OT law, shouldn't public blasphemy/proselytization to religions other than Christianity also be capital offenses?

Incidentally, the theonomists I know in real life would say "yes."

 

[gcthomas]

No. Because to punish someone for doing something when it was not illegal is unjust. You have to wait for them to commit the act while it is a crime.


They'd have to be caught in the act somehow with enough evidence to constitute the weight of two or three reliable witnesses. Exactly how I feel any criminal should be convicted. If such cannot be provided then they shouldn't even be arrested.

You were saying that homosexuality per se would be illegal, so that doesn't necessarily involve 'acts'. Did you mean to specify the illegal acts themselves or the inclination?

 

[Lighthouse]

@Lighthouse- OT law has a death penalty for idolatry to.

So, if you believe in imposing OT law, shouldn't public blasphemy/proselytization to religions other than Christianity also be capital offenses?

Incidentally, the theonomists I know in real life would say "yes."

There is a difference between thenomists and theocrats.

Whether or not the law should be in effect in all lands depends on the reason behind it in the first place. The law on idolatry was solely religious in nature, and thus was applied only to Israel and does not belong in any other law except God's commands for Israel prior to the finished work of Jesus.

And I do not believe in imposing OT law. I believe there are laws within that are good laws that should be applied to all societies.

You were saying that homosexuality per se would be illegal, so that doesn't necessarily involve 'acts'. Did you mean to specify the illegal acts themselves or the inclination?

The acts. There is no valid reason to criminalize the inclination if one does not act upon it.

 

[gcthomas]

The acts. There is no valid reason to criminalize the inclination if one does not act upon it.

So you would criminalise acts between men that would be allowed between a man and a woman?

How would you go about criminalising lesbianism?

 

[Arthur Brain]

I have no zealous extremism. I wouldn't advocate for this if I simply believed the Bible said so without understanding why.

Of course you have. You're part of a tiny vocal minority among just Christendom (thankfully) who advocate a barbaric modern state whereby people should be killed simply for having consenting adult relations. That kind of abhorrent "thinking" is extremism. Your talking about "understanding why" could be chucked out there by any zealot as to why they'd support such extreme viewpoints. I'm sure Fred Phelps would argue that he 'understood why' he supported his own horrific positions on what should befall other people by the same token. You're both absolute zealots no matter how much you might want to distance yourself away from the guy - and that is how you and your ilk are perceived in general like it or not.

Also, as my original point in all of this stated - we are free of such extremist 'religious' barbarism such as yours in the modern West, besides having to read such nonsense on occasion on forums etc.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Of course you have. You're part of a tiny vocal minority among just Christendom (thankfully) who advocate a barbaric modern state whereby people should be killed simply for having consenting adult relations. That kind of abhorrent "thinking" is extremism. Your talking about "understanding why" could be chucked out there by any zealot as to why they'd support such extreme viewpoints. I'm sure Fred Phelps would argue that he 'understood why' he supported his own horrific positions on what should befall other people by the same token. You're both absolute zealots no matter how much you might want to distance yourself away from the guy - and that is how you and your ilk are perceived in general like it or not.

Also, as my original point in all of this stated - we are free of such extremist 'religious' barbarism such as yours in the modern West, besides having to read such nonsense on occasion on forums etc.

Actually, I think its incredibly presumptuous of Lighthouse to say he wouldn't support the Biblical law if he didn't understand the reason for it. I would never say something like that. I guess I'm a "fanatic" in his world. I think he's making himself greater than God through a statement like that.

Even still, I believe 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 would prohibit laws against consensual sexual behavior in the modern era, which is why I reject it. It has nothing to do with "barbarism", and calling God's perfect law barbaric is wrong.

 

[MrDeets]

:vomit:

 

[Nick M]

No one here ever gives their plan for executing homosexuals. How do folks propose that the extermination of homosexuals is put into place?

Follow the lead from al-qaeda/islamic state? They do it all the time. The picture is the muslim brotherhood. B. Hussein Obama helped put them (al qaeda allies) into power.

View attachment 18987

 

[Lighthouse]

So you would criminalise acts between men that would be allowed between a man and a woman?

That's a stupid question.

How would you go about criminalising lesbianism?

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to get at with this question. Though if you mean it as I think you do then it is also a stupid question, and we already know you ask stupid questions, so maybe I do know what you're trying to ask.

Of course you have. You're part of a tiny vocal minority among just Christendom (thankfully) who advocate a barbaric modern state whereby people should be killed simply for having consenting adult relations. That kind of abhorrent "thinking" is extremism. Your talking about "understanding why" could be chucked out there by any zealot as to why they'd support such extreme viewpoints. I'm sure Fred Phelps would argue that he 'understood why' he supported his own horrific positions on what should befall other people by the same token. You're both absolute zealots no matter how much you might want to distance yourself away from the guy - and that is how you and your ilk are perceived in general like it or not.

Also, as my original point in all of this stated - we are free of such extremist 'religious' barbarism such as yours in the modern West, besides having to read such nonsense on occasion on forums etc.

Your implication was that I advocate this for the purposes of religious zealotry, which is completely false.

Actually, I think its incredibly presumptuous of Lighthouse to say he wouldn't support the Biblical law if he didn't understand the reason for it. I would never say something like that. I guess I'm a "fanatic" in his world. I think he's making himself greater than God through a statement like that.

I never said such a thing.

If I did not understand it I would not openly advocate it without researching it first. And if I came to the conclusion that it was solely religious in nature, such as the Sabbath, or idolatry then I would not advocate it or support it as a good law for here and now.

Even still, I believe 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 would prohibit laws against consensual sexual behavior in the modern era, which is why I reject it.

Of course you do; because you're a moron.

I am getting tired of the vapid things that come out of your mouth. That passage is Paul giving a call to preach the gospel to the lost. In no way does it support the idea that those particular sins should not be crimes, especially since it is implied that those who commit sins even you agree should be crimes should also be included among those to whom the gospel is preached.

Of course I am not saying every sin listed should be a crime, either. The Bible is clear on which should and should not be, outside of Israel. But this passage is not one of the places in which that is spelled out.

 

[gcthomas]

Lighthouse,

OK. You seem to be struggling, so I'll spell it out.

You wish to criminalise homosexuality acts in order to criminalise a group which you despise. So you wish to outlaw sodomy carried out on a man while not outlawing the very same act for a woman.

You also seem to want to outlaw female homosexuality, but you can't tell me what acts would be forbidden. Perhaps they are also carried out by consenting heterosexual couples, which makes outlawing them awkward.

So, can you specify what your preferred law would forbid, please?

(I don't think you have the wit to answer, but you could surprise us!)

 

[TracerBullet]

Follow the lead from al-qaeda/islamic state? They do it all the time. The picture is the muslim brotherhood. B. Hussein Obama helped put them (al qaeda allies) into power.

View attachment 18987

are you a supporter of what these states do to Christians?

 

[Nick M]

@Lighthouse- OT law has a death penalty for idolatry to.

So, if you believe in imposing OT law, shouldn't public blasphemy/proselytization to religions other than Christianity also be capital offenses?

That law has nothing to do with harming other people.

 

[Nick M]

are you a supporter of what these states do to Christians?

Is it stupid day on TOL?

 

[resurrected]

Is it stupid day on TOL?

every day is stupid day on tol! :banana:

 

[TracerBullet]

Is it stupid day on TOL?

well you are posting here so I would have to believe that yes, yes it is

 

[Christian Liberty]

I never said such a thing.

If I did not understand it I would not openly advocate it without researching it first. And if I came to the conclusion that it was solely religious in nature, such as the Sabbath, or idolatry then I would not advocate it or support it as a good law for here and now.

How is the proposition "Don't sleep with other men" any less religious than the proposition "Don't worship other gods".

Of course you do; because you're a moron.

ad hominem

I am getting tired of the vapid things that come out of your mouth.

Who cares what you think?

That passage is Paul giving a call to preach the gospel to the lost. In no way does it support the idea that those particular sins should not be crimes, especially since it is implied that those who commit sins even you agree should be crimes should also be included among those to whom the gospel is preached.

The point is that Paul was dealing with a case of incest in the church, yet he didn't respond by appealing to the law. He said the sinner should be cast out of the church.

Of course I am not saying every sin listed should be a crime, either. The Bible is clear on which should and should not be, outside of Israel. But this passage is not one of the places in which that is spelled out.

Yet oddly enough you support drug prohibition.